I have seen wildly different views on this online and there seems to be no conclusive authority.
My suspicion is that their use is wildly over-reported, and the typical effects of alcohol mistaken for them. But I have no actual knowledge of that. Maybe BB would know.
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 11:28:22 AM
My suspicion is that their use is wildly over-reported, and the typical effects of alcohol mistaken for them. But I have no actual knowledge of that. Maybe BB would know.
Just what are you implying, Sir?
No.
I'm skeptical. Have they actually worked for anyone here?
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
How does that "unable to consent" work with alcohol? Does having sex with a woman that is above a certain BAC level automatically make you a rapist, absent a notarized statement from earlier that day granting consent for that night?
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
How does that "unable to consent" work with alcohol? Does having sex with a woman that is above a certain BAC level automatically make you a rapist, absent a notarized statement from earlier that day granting consent for that night?
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
I don't know how common it is, and BB says it's rare and I'll take his judgement, but I was with a friend when I believe she was slipped something. She went from fine to like sloppy drunk incoherent in two drinks at a party.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
How does that "unable to consent" work with alcohol? Does having sex with a woman that is above a certain BAC level automatically make you a rapist, absent a notarized statement from earlier that day granting consent for that night?
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
That's a tautological answer. Obviously sex with someone unable to consent is one of the definitions of rape. But what is meant by "unable to give consent"? Unconscious? Or "obviously she's too drunk to rationally evaluate the consequences of giving consent"?
Depends on what you look like and how much money you make.
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 11:59:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
How does that "unable to consent" work with alcohol? Does having sex with a woman that is above a certain BAC level automatically make you a rapist, absent a notarized statement from earlier that day granting consent for that night?
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
That's a tautological answer. Obviously sex with someone unable to consent is one of the definitions of rape. But what is meant by "unable to give consent"? Unconscious? Or "obviously she's too drunk to rationally evaluate the consequences of giving consent"?
Ultimately it's a question for the trier of fact to decide, based on all the circumstances. It's not just unconscious, but it's something closer to unconscious than it is to fully sober. It's not agreeing to something you later regret - it's more like not knowing what is even happening, not being able to speak coherently.
My mother used to have the idea that people randomly slipped them into any drink whose owner wasn't paying full attention. Pfff. <_<
I'll go with malthus. "I was drugged!!" Does sound like a very good excuse vs "i drunk too much. Lol" yet nonetheless they certainly exist.
Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2016, 11:56:54 AM
I don't know how common it is, and BB says it's rare and I'll take his judgement, but I was with a friend when I believe she was slipped something. She went from fine to like sloppy drunk incoherent in two drinks at a party.
I'm not a scientist, and I've done no studies. I'm just speaking from my own anecdotal experience (albeit that experience does include a lot of sexual assault prosecutions).
The thing is though it doesn't make much sense for someone to just randomly slip your friend some drugs. Unless that person is already in a position of trust with the girl (and is thus able to take advantage of her later) there's no real incentive to slip a stranger some drugs. Besides alcohol can have an unusually strong effect on a person - combine it with empty stomach, tiredness, or other drugs (prescription or otherwise).
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
How does that "unable to consent" work with alcohol? Does having sex with a woman that is above a certain BAC level automatically make you a rapist, absent a notarized statement from earlier that day granting consent for that night?
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
What if the man is just as drunk as the woman?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 19, 2016, 12:25:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
How does that "unable to consent" work with alcohol? Does having sex with a woman that is above a certain BAC level automatically make you a rapist, absent a notarized statement from earlier that day granting consent for that night?
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
What if the man is just as drunk as the woman?
For policy reasons, self-induced intoxication is not a defence to any crime. So, still a rapist.
I'm giving you the Canadian criminal law here, but I believe it's pretty similar in the other common law jurisdictions.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 12:29:22 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 19, 2016, 12:25:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
How does that "unable to consent" work with alcohol? Does having sex with a woman that is above a certain BAC level automatically make you a rapist, absent a notarized statement from earlier that day granting consent for that night?
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
What if the man is just as drunk as the woman?
For policy reasons, self-induced intoxication is not a defence to any crime. So, still a rapist.
I'm giving you the Canadian criminal law here, but I believe it's pretty similar in the other common law jurisdictions.
So then they're both rapists?
Whichever one is on top is the rapist, I guess?
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
I thought you were in a college fraternity.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2016, 12:31:47 PM
Whichever one is on top is the rapist, I guess?
:lol: I was going to say that. :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 12:56:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
I thought you were in a college fraternity.
Yes. And?
Before I gave up alcohol, I had one experience that really terrified me!
I was relaxing with friends. You know, just doing me.
I think I drank maybe half a bottle of Rum and then at some point in the night I fell asleep. I don't remember anything. And they showed me videos of stuff I don't remember doing.
Only alcohol was involved but given my lack of memory and the insane things I was doing I could see how someone could think they were drugged if they didn't know better.
Quote from: Jaron on January 19, 2016, 01:18:56 PM
Before I gave up alcohol, I had one experience that really terrified me!
I was relaxing with friends. You know, just doing me.
I think I drank maybe half a bottle of Rum and then at some point in the night I fell asleep. I don't remember anything. And they showed me videos of stuff I don't remember doing.
Only alcohol was involved but given my lack of memory and the insane things I was doing I could see how someone could think they were drugged if they didn't know better.
Hope this wasn't at your Uncle's house.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 12:29:22 PM
For policy reasons, self-induced intoxication is not a defence to any crime. So, still a rapist.
I'm giving you the Canadian criminal law here, but I believe it's pretty similar in the other common law jurisdictions.
Ah. So you can be too drunk to consent to sex, but not too drunk to have liability for the crimes you commit.
Edit: Rephrased, alcohol does not absolve you from responsibility for the crimes you commit, but it can absolve you from responsibility for the sex you have.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 01:10:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 12:56:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
I thought you were in a college fraternity.
Yes. And?
Maybe Canadian fraternities are different. In Columbia (where MU is) they give out test strips to detect date rape drugs. It's been a bit of a problem for the Greeks.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
Is it true that alcohol is a factor in the majority of violent crimes? I read that somewhere, but it may have been a rhetorical flourish.
Anyway, getting drunk isn't usually what is meant by "date rape drugs" - it's more sneakily putting an unknown-to-the-victim drug in their drink when they aren't looking. I suppose spiking their drink with extra booze would qualify, if unknown to the victim. It is the deliberate deception about being drugged that is key, I think, to how most people understand it - hence the moral panic.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 01:36:47 PM
Maybe Canadian fraternities are different. In Columbia (where MU is) they give out test strips to detect date rape drugs. It's been a bit of a problem for the Greeks.
That's the issue. Is it really a problem, or is it a moral panic about a rare occurance?
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 01:55:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
Is it true that alcohol is a factor in the majority of violent crimes? I read that somewhere, but it may have been a rhetorical flourish.
Anyway, getting drunk isn't usually what is meant by "date rape drugs" - it's more sneakily putting an unknown-to-the-victim drug in their drink when they aren't looking. I suppose spiking their drink with extra booze would qualify, if unknown to the victim. It is the deliberate deception about being drugged that is key, I think, to how most people understand it - hence the moral panic.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I think the moral panic about "date rape drugs" is actually doing more harm than good by detracting from the real issue, which is that of consent from inebriated people (mainly women).
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 12:29:22 PM
For policy reasons, self-induced intoxication is not a defence to any crime. So, still a rapist.
I'm giving you the Canadian criminal law here, but I believe it's pretty similar in the other common law jurisdictions.
Same in Napoleonic law jurisdictions, at least in Poland, unless you can prove the so-called "pathological intoxication" (where, without a reasonable way to expect it, you go bonkers after, say, one beer).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2016, 12:31:47 PM
Whichever one is on top is the rapist, I guess?
That's why it pays off to be the bottom. :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 01:56:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 01:36:47 PM
Maybe Canadian fraternities are different. In Columbia (where MU is) they give out test strips to detect date rape drugs. It's been a bit of a problem for the Greeks.
That's the issue. Is it really a problem, or is it a moral panic about a rare occurance?
I checked out wiki, and found this link:
QuotePrevalence of Drugs Used in Cases of Alleged Sexual Assault
M.A. ElSohly1 and S.J. Salamone2,*
+ Author Affiliations
1ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, Mississippi 38655
2Roche Diagnostics, 1080 U.S. Highway 202, Somerville, New Jersey 08876
↵*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail [email protected].
Received February 4, 1999.
Revision received March 30, 1999.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of reports in the U.S. of the use of drugs, often in conjunction with alcohol, to commit sexual assault. A study was undertaken to assess the prevalence of drug use in sexual assault cases in which substances are suspected of being involved. Law enforcement agencies, emergency rooms, and rape crisis centers across the U.S. were offered the opportunity to submit urine samples collected from victims of alleged sexual assault, where drug use was suspected, for analysis of alcohol and drugs which may be associated with sexual assault. Each sample was tested by immunoassay for amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine), cannabinoids, methaqualone, opiates, phencyclidine and propoxyphene. The positive screen results were confirmed by gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC-MS). In addition, each sample was tested for flunitrazepam metabolites and gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) by GC-MS and for ethanol by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID). Over a 26-month period, 1179 samples were collected and analyzed from 49 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The states sending the most samples were California (183), Texas (119), Florida (61), Pennsylvania (61), New York (61), Minnesota (50), Illinois (47), Indiana (44), Michigan (40), Maryland (37), Virginia (32), and Massachusetts (31). Four-hundred sixty eight of the samples were found negative for all the substances tested; 451 were positive for ethanol, 218 for cannabinoids, 97 for benzoylecgonine, 97 for benzodiazepines, 51 for amphetamines, 48 for GHB, 25 for opiates, 17 for propoxyphene, and 12 for barbiturates. There were no samples identified as positive for phencydidine or methaqualone. In addition, 35% of the drug-positive samples contained multiple drugs. This study indicates that, with respect to alleged sexual assault cases, the prevalence of ethanol is very high, followed by cannabinoids, cocaine, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, and GHB. Although only a couple of substances have been implicated with sexual assault, this study has shown that almost 20 different substances have been associated with this crime. This study also raises the concern of illicit and licit drug use in sexual assault cases and suggests the need to test for a range of drugs in these cases. It also highlights the need to test for GHB, which is not generally tested for in a normal toxicology screen.
http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/3/141
So even in cases of suspected druggings, drugs were found in only a minority of cases.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2016, 01:59:13 PM
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I think the moral panic about "date rape drugs" is actually doing more harm than good by detracting from the real issue, which is that of consent from inebriated people (mainly women).
You'd have to be pretty inebriated if consent from a woman was a real issue for you.
:P
But seriously - I agree.
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 01:55:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:46:49 AM
Yes and no.
The idea that someone is going to slip a drug (like rohypnol or GHB) into a woman's drink in order to facilitate sexual assault is pretty rare. I think I've seen one file, ever, where that looked like that was happening.
But alcohol is a drug too. The idea of a man giving alcohol to a woman, or pouring overly-strong drinks, with an ultimate end of forcing sex when she's unable to consent is distressingly common.
Is it true that alcohol is a factor in the majority of violent crimes? I read that somewhere, but it may have been a rhetorical flourish.
Anyway, getting drunk isn't usually what is meant by "date rape drugs" - it's more sneakily putting an unknown-to-the-victim drug in their drink when they aren't looking. I suppose spiking their drink with extra booze would qualify, if unknown to the victim. It is the deliberate deception about being drugged that is key, I think, to how most people understand it - hence the moral panic.
It probably is.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
there's a difference between passed out and drunk.
How are we supposed to know a girl is too drunk to give consent when she's talking and walking?
If somebody slipped you a mickey or over-liquored your drink and then used your intoxicated state to convince you to commit a (non-sexual)crime for them, would you be charged for the crime, or would they be charged for rape?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 02:33:39 PM
If somebody slipped you a mickey or over-liquored your drink and then used your intoxicated state to convince you to commit a (non-sexual)crime for them, would you be charged for the crime, or would they be charged for rape?
The rule is against self-induced intoxication. If someone forces your mouth open and pours liquor down your throat all bets are off - you may well be able to claim a lack of
mens rea due to intoxication.
Quote from: Jaron on January 19, 2016, 01:18:56 PM
Before I gave up alcohol, I had one experience that really terrified me!
I was relaxing with friends. You know, just doing me.
I think I drank maybe half a bottle of Rum and then at some point in the night I fell asleep. I don't remember anything. And they showed me videos of stuff I don't remember doing.
Only alcohol was involved but given my lack of memory and the insane things I was doing I could see how someone could think they were drugged if they didn't know better.
something similar to that happenned to me 2 times. I was told it is highly possible it was only alcohol, but I still have my doubts. I usually recall everything I do when drunk, no total blackouts. Once, I completely lost track of a huge portion of time and woke up with a black eye the morning after. Another time, I was fine, drinking a beer, talking with a girl, and suddenly I became all dizzy, everything was spinning around me and I thought I'd be sick. Had to excuse myself and I had trouble walking home. Twice at the same bar, in the same time period. Plus one other similar time when I became drunk very, very, very quickly.
By the way I feel like I should point out that date rape drugs are not a complete myth - that apparently was Bill Cosby's MO.
But again, in that situation it's not a stranger slipping something in your drink - rather it's a trusted tv personality who those girls had agreed to go into his hotel room with.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 02:36:40 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 02:33:39 PM
If somebody slipped you a mickey or over-liquored your drink and then used your intoxicated state to convince you to commit a (non-sexual)crime for them, would you be charged for the crime, or would they be charged for rape?
The rule is against self-induced intoxication. If someone forces your mouth open and pours liquor down your throat all bets are off - you may well be able to claim a lack of mens rea due to intoxication.
What about the other point? If both are too drunk to consent, which one is the rapist?
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2016, 02:33:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
there's a difference between passed out and drunk.
How are we supposed to know a girl is too drunk to give consent when she's talking and walking?
There is a pretty clear line actually. If you are in any doubt, don't do it.
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2016, 02:33:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
There's no magic BAC level, but if a woman is unable to consent (not just that her reasoning is impaired, but that she is unable to give consent) then yes, having sex with her makes you a rapist. :mellow:
there's a difference between passed out and drunk.
How are we supposed to know a girl is too drunk to give consent when she's talking and walking?
Not wanting to pick on Viper specifically, but there's a very weird societal double standard going on here.
The idea of someone being slipped a date rape drug is horrible, and the girl is a victim.
But when I point out the overwhelming #1 date rape drug is alcohol, all the men get quite defensive and start talking about false rape accusations.
If a girl is walking and talking, you're probably fine. If you say "Wanna shag" and she says "yes" then she's consented.
If you say "wanna shag" and she just stares off in the distance, then she hasn't consented.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 02:38:27 PM
By the way I feel like I should point out that date rape drugs are not a complete myth - that apparently was Bill Cosby's MO.
But again, in that situation it's not a stranger slipping something in your drink - rather it's a trusted tv personality who those girls had agreed to go into his hotel room with.
Sure, but I think the thesis isn't that it is a complete myth, but rather that there is a "moral panic" based on extensive publicity concerning a relatively trivially rare occurrence.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 02:43:22 PM
Not wanting to pick on Viper specifically, but there's a very weird societal double standard going on here.
The idea of someone being slipped a date rape drug is horrible, and the girl is a victim.
But when I point out the overwhelming #1 date rape drug is alcohol, all the men get quite defensive and start talking about false rape accusations.
The difference is that in one case, the girl consents to being drugged (after all, you start drinking when you're sober), while in another case, the date rape drug is slipped secretly.
Quote
If a girl is walking and talking, you're probably fine. If you say "Wanna shag" and she says "yes" then she's consented.
If you say "wanna shag" and she just stares off in the distance, then she hasn't consented.
Okay, that's more clear, and reasonable.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 02:43:22 PM
But when I point out the overwhelming #1 date rape drug is alcohol, all the men get quite defensive and start talking about false rape accusations.
It's a problem with the terminology. Drinking is a large part of the culture; using the 'date rape' label for booze may appear on the surface to be pathologizing common partying.
What would make booze a 'date rape drug' is the deliberate spiking of someone's drink with excess booze for the specific purpose of taking advantage of their subsequent inability to consent.
Is marti trying to find some and not finding success? :unsure:
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2016, 02:52:21 PM
Is marti trying to find some and not finding success? :unsure:
Perhaps his firm found out he's not really a lawyer and cut the tap? :hmm:
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2016, 02:52:21 PM
Is marti trying to find some and not finding success? :unsure:
Translate into English please.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2016, 03:03:40 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2016, 02:52:21 PM
Is marti trying to find some and not finding success? :unsure:
Translate into English please.
Marty: hello Sailor!
Gay dude at bar gives Marty a dirty look and moves away
Marty: hey, how you doin?
Another gay dude shrugs and turns away
Marty: does anyone here want to FUCK me? I have lots of money, btw.
/crickets
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 01:55:48 PM
Is it true that alcohol is a factor in the majority of violent crimes? I read that somewhere, but it may have been a rhetorical flourish.
It's possible that 100% of violent crimes perpetrator drank water in the week prior to committing a crime. I sense a pattern here.
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 02:43:22 PM
But when I point out the overwhelming #1 date rape drug is alcohol, all the men get quite defensive and start talking about false rape accusations.
It's a problem with the terminology. Drinking is a large part of the culture; using the 'date rape' label for booze may appear on the surface to be pathologizing common partying.
What would make booze a 'date rape drug' is the deliberate spiking of someone's drink with excess booze for the specific purpose of taking advantage of their subsequent inability to consent.
Perhaps not to take advantage of inability to consent, but is it not incredibly common for boys to buy drinks for girls, to add alcohol to a punch, encourage them to play drinking games, with the express purpose of hoping to reduce inhibitions so that they'll sleep with them?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 02:39:41 PM
There is a pretty clear line actually. If you are in any doubt, don't do it.
I'm talking about 2 drunk people having sex, and the morning after one of them says he/she was too drunk to consent. Didn't it happen with some NBA player?
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2016, 03:17:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 02:39:41 PM
There is a pretty clear line actually. If you are in any doubt, don't do it.
I'm talking about 2 drunk people having sex, and the morning after one of them says he/she was too drunk to consent. Didn't it happen with some NBA player?
The best advice there is dont get drunk.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 02:43:22 PM
If a girl is walking and talking, you're probably fine. If you say "Wanna shag" and she says "yes" then she's consented.
If you say "wanna shag" and she just stares off in the distance, then she hasn't consented.
as I said, there's a difference between two drunk people having sex and a girl being passed out. Yet, I fear the tribunals don't make much differences.
There was a recent case in Quebec city where the girl decided to take GHB to party. She took GHB, she went into a bar, had some drinks, met a guy, went home with the guy where they had sex. During the night she woke up, fled naked in the street and called for help because she was raped, she had no memory how she got there.
The guy was caught by police after dumping her clothes in a thrash bin.
Granted, that last part wasn't a bright move. But even if the girl admitted she voluntarily used the drug to party, putting herself vulnerable, the guy was condemned for rape because she was unable to give consent.
As others said, double standard here. If I do drugs and I commit a crime, I am responsible. If a girl do drugs and has sex, she can claim it was a rape because she was unable to reason properly about what she was doing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:21:04 PM
The best advice there is dont get drunk.
:P
Or leave your house after dark. Or before dark.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2016, 03:17:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 02:39:41 PM
There is a pretty clear line actually. If you are in any doubt, don't do it.
I'm talking about 2 drunk people having sex, and the morning after one of them says he/she was too drunk to consent. Didn't it happen with some NBA player?
The best advice there is dont get drunk.
wallet sized consent forms :contract:
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2016, 03:22:42 PM
As others said, double standard here. If I do drugs and I commit a crime, I am responsible. If a girl do drugs and has sex, she can claim it was a rape because she was unable to reason properly about what she was doing.
Well, kids can't give consent either. Maybe drunk/high people should be charged for their crimes as juveniles. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:23:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:21:04 PM
The best advice there is dont get drunk.
:P
Or leave your house after dark. Or before dark.
If you think you put yourself at risk to rape someone if you leave your house you should probably get some professional help asap.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:23:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:21:04 PM
The best advice there is dont get drunk.
:P
Or leave your house after dark. Or before dark.
If you think you put yourself at risk to rape someone if you leave your house you should probably get some professional help asap.
I thought you were talking to the victims! :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2016, 03:03:40 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2016, 02:52:21 PM
Is marti trying to find some and not finding success? :unsure:
Translate into English please.
You're putting out, but no one is leaving empties on your doorstep. :bowler:
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:13:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 02:43:22 PM
But when I point out the overwhelming #1 date rape drug is alcohol, all the men get quite defensive and start talking about false rape accusations.
It's a problem with the terminology. Drinking is a large part of the culture; using the 'date rape' label for booze may appear on the surface to be pathologizing common partying.
What would make booze a 'date rape drug' is the deliberate spiking of someone's drink with excess booze for the specific purpose of taking advantage of their subsequent inability to consent.
Perhaps not to take advantage of inability to consent, but is it not incredibly common for boys to buy drinks for girls, to add alcohol to a punch, encourage them to play drinking games, with the express purpose of hoping to reduce inhibitions so that they'll sleep with them?
Buy drinks for girls, yes.
Considering the other two being "incredibly common" may be artifacts of your frat years. :P
But boys buying drinks for girls (or boys for that matter) is simply part of the cultural dance of courtship, and accepted as such. For normal people, it isn't the intent that the drinks literally render the girl incapable of consent, but rather, reduce inhibitions to normal interaction: the boys are also consuming drinks, for the same reason!
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2016, 03:10:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 19, 2016, 01:55:48 PM
Is it true that alcohol is a factor in the majority of violent crimes? I read that somewhere, but it may have been a rhetorical flourish.
It's possible that 100% of violent crimes perpetrator drank water in the week prior to committing a crime. I sense a pattern here.
I suggest a rather stronger causative link may exist with booze ... ;)
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:23:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:21:04 PM
The best advice there is dont get drunk.
:P
Or leave your house after dark. Or before dark.
If you think you put yourself at risk to rape someone if you leave your house you should probably get some professional help asap.
I thought you were talking to the victims! :lol:
Oh, ok I can see you you might have read it that way. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
But responding to what, I think, Viper was saying. If a male does not want to be put in the position of being accused of rape, they had best remain sober.
Nope, date rape drugs are not an urban myth as far as I'm concerned.
Anecdote #1:
I was in art school. I was mildly broken hearted over some girl in that overwrought way that comes easily to people in the early 20s and art-students, and I was both.
There was a party where I vaguely knew someone and what better way to get over a mildly broken heart than to go to a party, drink a bunch, make conversation, meet some new people, see what happened. That's what I did.
It was a good party, and I soon found myself making conversation with a girl. She was very pretty I thought, friendly, and pleasantly interested in my conversation. Things were looking up, I thought. It being a party, of course, I couldn't glom on to her so I wandered about a bit to chat with whatever people I knew and take in the scene as it were.
I ran into a girl I knew from school. She'd always been friendly to me in a way that suggested she was "interested". I'd always been mildly friendly back, but left it at that. The problem was that I found her spectacularly unattractive. In retrospective, she wasn't particularly unattractive, but she had a few features that hit my "no" buttons. Anyhow, she was there and she was clearly flirting with me and that was pleasant enough for a while even if I had no intentions of taking it further.
The party rumbled on and eventually I located the pretty girl again. Alas, she was deep in chat with some other dude, but I went over to say hi. Introductions were made and small talk was had - it was pretty clear that I didn't have a chance there. Oh well, no big loss.
So dude pulls out a jar of pills offers one to the girl, offers me one, and (maybe) takes one himself. I check out the jar - it has some compound chemical that I've never seen - and think "what the fuck" and take one. Yes, obviously you shouldn't take unidentified drugs from people you don't know, but what's the worst that can happen, right?
I wander around the party a bit longer. Pretty soon I start feeling really fucking drunk, and rather drowsy too. Things get a bit hazy, but I vaguely recall making my way into a bedroom that's been used for coat storage - I think perhaps to get my own jacket so I can leave - and I think I decide to lay down for a quick rest.
I pass out cold.
After an indeterminate amount of time I start having an erotic dream. I have no idea where I am - I'm half awake, half asleep state, barely conscious - but have that funny feeling in my pants and I'm kissing someone. It's a nice dream, and it goes on for a while but eventually I come to and discover that I'm still in that bed at that party, and that the girl I flirted with from school sitting across my crotch, grinding away. We are both wearing our clothes, thankfully.
All groggy I ask her what's going on, and she quickly realizes that I had no clue how we ended up like that. She stammers up an embarrassed apology, I tell her "don't worry about it", and she beats a hasty retreat.
I get my jacket and head home to sleep off the rest of the night in my own bed.
The next day, by coincidence, I read the local free paper and they have a small public notice type article where they say the Vancouver Police are issuing an alert about [some drug name], which has been used recently in a number of date rapes, and for people to be aware etc etc. I recognize the name from the pill jar last night.
Since it was my day off, and since I remembered where the pretty girl worked - it was a bagel shop, I believe, and she mentioned it the previous evening - I go there and show her the article, and check if she's okay. She thanks me and says all is fine - the dude was her boyfriend, don't worry about it. So I don't.
But yeah, from personal experience I'm pretty sure those drugs are not a myth. They did a solid number on me, that's for sure.
...
Anecdote #2
Friend of mine related a story of how she went to the night-club with another friend - also female. Her friend - normally a pretty sturdy drinker - got fall-down-sloppy-drunk after having half a drink that the bartender comped her. A group of guys - obviously together - told the people around her "I got this, bro," "don't worry, I got her," and "she's with me" and tried to gather her up until my friend told them "fuck off, she's with me and she doesn't know you."
Could just be coincidence, of course, but it fits the pattern pretty well.
...
Anecdote #3
Friend of mine - a guy - went to a private party at a bar where he knew some people. Somehow he got super duper drunk after a few drinks - and he was a pretty stout drinker at that point in time - and this guy - some random stranger, who soon had another friend with him - managed to walk him out of the bar to an ATM and withdraw the maximum possible amounts from both his bank card and credit card twice, before and after midnight.
The withdrawals were caught on CCTV, but there wasn't much the police could do and the bank wasn't too helpful either.
No proof of any drugs, of course, but it fits the pattern pretty well.
...
So yeah... I don't think date rape drugs are an urban myth.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
I've never understood this feminist message that telling girls to take steps to protect themselves is unacceptable and blaming the victim. It's sheer common sense.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
I've never understood this feminist message that telling girls to take steps to protect themselves is unacceptable and blaming the victim. It's sheer common sense.
What is a reasonable step? Back to MiM's post to me when I had not clearly communicated my position. Not leaving the house unescorted?
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
I've never understood this feminist message that telling girls to take steps to protect themselves is unacceptable and blaming the victim. It's sheer common sense.
Because it's commonly been used to segue to "if you didn't take whatever step I'm suggesting, then you clearly wanted to have sex, so it's not rape because you didn't fight hard enough."
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
I've never understood this feminist message that telling girls to take steps to protect themselves is unacceptable and blaming the victim. It's sheer common sense.
What is a reasonable step? Back to MiM's post to me when I had not clearly communicated my position. Not leaving the house unescorted?
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
I've never understood this feminist message that telling girls to take steps to protect themselves is unacceptable and blaming the victim. It's sheer common sense.
What is a reasonable step? Back to MiM's post to me when I had not clearly communicated my position. Not leaving the house unescorted?
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
Like a rugby team. :bowler:
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2016, 03:42:19 PM
So dude pulls out a jar of pills offers one to the girl, offers me one, and (maybe) takes one himself. I check out the jar - it has some compound chemical that I've never seen - and think "what the fuck" and take one.
Which drugs had you taken earlier that made you make this decision?
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Your car was asking for it, with that short skirt.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi239.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff164%2Fxenonhids%2Fnewpictures1028.jpg&hash=9cf338cc4e535099805638ab3a2d67210f0d489a)
:P
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
But responding to what, I think, Viper was saying. If a male does not want to be put in the position of being accused of rape, they had best remain sober.
I don't think that's sufficient to do the trick.
Don't want to take a chance of being falsely convicted of rape? Emasculate yourself.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2016, 05:15:43 PM
Don't want to take a chance of being falsely convicted of rape? Emasculate yourself.
Objection, your honor. The accused could have cut that off while awaiting trial.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Really? Did you just equate a girl who drinks with leaving her doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
A girl who drinks and goes into the bedroom of a frat guy? Yeah I would equate that just like Cammy P.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
I see this mentioned a lot. Maybe things are different over there but it just annoys me. What guy doesn't know rape is bad? Yet still you get feminists shrilling about how this is the lesson we need to spread.
I mean, the police don't go around telling guys with moustaches not to offer kids rides in their car; they tell kids not to get into strangers cars.
Teaching someone how to avoid being a victim is far easier than ferreting out those few who don't want to obey the rule and brain washing them into compliance
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Really? Did you just equate a girl who drinks with leaving her doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
Getting wasted in public is incredibly risky behavior no matter who you are and not just for getting raped.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Really? Did you just equate a girl who drinks with leaving her doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
if a girls drinks a lot, follows a guy to his hotel room, start fondling, ask him to stop and he does, is that rape? 'Cause I remember a case where it was...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Really? Did you just equate a girl who drinks with leaving her doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
Umm, kind of?
I didn't say "don't drink" - I said "don't drink to excess in situations where there aren't sober friends to help you in case of trouble". And as Valmy pointed out that's excellent advice for both genders. You guys make fun of me for my fraternity days but those were rules we always followed. Not that we didn't drink (far from it!) but, unless it was brothers only at the house, when we hosted parties, or when we went out to the bar we always looked after each other and made sure there were some sober people present.
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2016, 03:48:37 AM
I see this mentioned a lot. Maybe things are different over there but it just annoys me. What guy doesn't know rape is bad? Yet still you get feminists shrilling about how this is the lesson we need to spread.
I mean, the police don't go around telling guys with moustaches not to offer kids rides in their car; they tell kids not to get into strangers cars.
Teaching someone how to avoid being a victim is far easier than ferreting out those few who don't want to obey the rule and brain washing them into compliance
It's not that guys don't know rape is bad. It's that too many guys think that what they're doing isn't rape.
Earlier I said the line was incredibly easy: "Do you wanna fuck?" "yes" - BOOM - not rape.
But when you don't ask... when you start touching her ass, start removing her bra... the girl says "I don't think we should", pushes his hands away, says "Not tonight", but doesn't scream bloody murder... well that probably is rape. But too many guys think it isn't.
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2016, 11:32:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Really? Did you just equate a girl who drinks with leaving her doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
if a girls drinks a lot, follows a guy to his hotel room, start fondling, ask him to stop and he does, is that rape? 'Cause I remember a case where it was...
Do you have a link? In particular to a reported case decision?
I believe that something like one in 10 of reported cases are actually linked to date rape drugs, but they are often reported too late to gather forensic proof.
I think I may have been given something once when I was internet dating.
Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2016, 03:42:19 PM
Anecdote #2
Friend of mine related a story of how she went to the night-club with another friend - also female. Her friend - normally a pretty sturdy drinker - got fall-down-sloppy-drunk after having half a drink that the bartender comped her. A group of guys - obviously together - told the people around her "I got this, bro," "don't worry, I got her," and "she's with me" and tried to gather her up until my friend told them "fuck off, she's with me and she doesn't know you."
Could just be coincidence, of course, but it fits the pattern pretty well.
...
Seen stuff like that happen twice and know two other girls who claim the same happened to them. So yeah, stuff like this happens?
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 11:39:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2016, 03:48:37 AM
I see this mentioned a lot. Maybe things are different over there but it just annoys me. What guy doesn't know rape is bad? Yet still you get feminists shrilling about how this is the lesson we need to spread.
I mean, the police don't go around telling guys with moustaches not to offer kids rides in their car; they tell kids not to get into strangers cars.
Teaching someone how to avoid being a victim is far easier than ferreting out those few who don't want to obey the rule and brain washing them into compliance
It's not that guys don't know rape is bad. It's that too many guys think that what they're doing isn't rape.
Earlier I said the line was incredibly easy: "Do you wanna fuck?" "yes" - BOOM - not rape.
But when you don't ask... when you start touching her ass, start removing her bra... the girl says "I don't think we should", pushes his hands away, says "Not tonight", but doesn't scream bloody murder... well that probably is rape. But too many guys think it isn't.
I get what you mean. There are a lot of people in this world that fail to see rape as anything more than knife wielding strangers in dark alleys stuff.
Nonetheless the line isn't so clear as you make it.
A few months ago I met a cute Dutch girl in a bar. She was flirting with me quite heavily. She said her apartment was cold and her room mates annoying. ...could she please sleep at mine? But totally not for sex. She said it outright.
Yet nonetheless. She knew what she was really asking. I knew what she was really asking. She knew I knew. And at home I left the bathroom to find her naked in my bed (for the record: totally lucid. I didn't just jump on her)
I can only recall a handful of times in my life where there was an actual "sex?" "Ok" and most of those were with someone I'd been seeing a while.
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2016, 12:06:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 11:39:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2016, 03:48:37 AM
I see this mentioned a lot. Maybe things are different over there but it just annoys me. What guy doesn't know rape is bad? Yet still you get feminists shrilling about how this is the lesson we need to spread.
I mean, the police don't go around telling guys with moustaches not to offer kids rides in their car; they tell kids not to get into strangers cars.
Teaching someone how to avoid being a victim is far easier than ferreting out those few who don't want to obey the rule and brain washing them into compliance
It's not that guys don't know rape is bad. It's that too many guys think that what they're doing isn't rape.
Earlier I said the line was incredibly easy: "Do you wanna fuck?" "yes" - BOOM - not rape.
But when you don't ask... when you start touching her ass, start removing her bra... the girl says "I don't think we should", pushes his hands away, says "Not tonight", but doesn't scream bloody murder... well that probably is rape. But too many guys think it isn't.
I get what you mean. There are a lot of people in this world that fail to see rape as anything more than knife wielding strangers in dark alleys stuff.
Nonetheless the line isn't so clear as you make it.
A few months ago I met a cute Dutch girl in a bar. She was flirting with me quite heavily. She said her apartment was cold and her room mates annoying. ...could she please sleep at mine? But totally not for sex. She said it outright.
Yet nonetheless. She knew what she was really asking. I knew what she was really asking. She knew I knew. And at home I left the bathroom to find her naked in my bed (for the record: totally lucid. I didn't just jump on her)
I can only recall a handful of times in my life where there was an actual "sex?" "Ok" and most of those were with someone I'd been seeing a while.
A pox on these blurred lines!
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2016, 12:06:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 11:39:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2016, 03:48:37 AM
I see this mentioned a lot. Maybe things are different over there but it just annoys me. What guy doesn't know rape is bad? Yet still you get feminists shrilling about how this is the lesson we need to spread.
I mean, the police don't go around telling guys with moustaches not to offer kids rides in their car; they tell kids not to get into strangers cars.
Teaching someone how to avoid being a victim is far easier than ferreting out those few who don't want to obey the rule and brain washing them into compliance
It's not that guys don't know rape is bad. It's that too many guys think that what they're doing isn't rape.
Earlier I said the line was incredibly easy: "Do you wanna fuck?" "yes" - BOOM - not rape.
But when you don't ask... when you start touching her ass, start removing her bra... the girl says "I don't think we should", pushes his hands away, says "Not tonight", but doesn't scream bloody murder... well that probably is rape. But too many guys think it isn't.
I get what you mean. There are a lot of people in this world that fail to see rape as anything more than knife wielding strangers in dark alleys stuff.
Nonetheless the line isn't so clear as you make it.
A few months ago I met a cute Dutch girl in a bar. She was flirting with me quite heavily. She said her apartment was cold and her room mates annoying. ...could she please sleep at mine? But totally not for sex. She said it outright.
Yet nonetheless. She knew what she was really asking. I knew what she was really asking. She knew I knew. And at home I left the bathroom to find her naked in my bed (for the record: totally lucid. I didn't just jump on her)
I can only recall a handful of times in my life where there was an actual "sex?" "Ok" and most of those were with someone I'd been seeing a while.
:perv:
Now the lawyer in me would probably have me jump in bed and say "so, I thought you didn't want sex..."
There's nothing wrong with, and it does not kill the mood, to say "do you want me to..." "I am going to do..." "do you mind if I..."
And personally, if I girl wants to play all coy - I am not into that at all. Baby, I will do almost anything you want me to do, but you have to tell me you want it. Maybe even tell me how much you want it. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 12:43:09 PM
Now the lawyer in me would probably have me jump in bed and say "so, I thought you didn't want sex..."
:(
"He's more lawyer now than man. His mind is twisted and evil."
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 12:43:09 PM
And personally, if I girl wants to play all coy - I am not into that at all. Baby, I will do almost anything you want me to do, but you have to tell me you want it. Maybe even tell me how much you want it. :cool:
You're so smooth :frog:
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2016, 01:21:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 12:43:09 PM
And personally, if I girl wants to play all coy - I am not into that at all. Baby, I will do almost anything you want me to do, but you have to tell me you want it. Maybe even tell me how much you want it. :cool:
You're so smooth :frog:
Et tu, Jacob? I assumed I'd get some shots from others, but surely you'd support my stance that explicit consent in the bedroom is kind of sexy. :(
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2016, 11:32:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Really? Did you just equate a girl who drinks with leaving her doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
if a girls drinks a lot, follows a guy to his hotel room, start fondling, ask him to stop and he does, is that rape? 'Cause I remember a case where it was...
Do you have a link? In particular to a reported case decision?
Gilbert Rozon, many years ago. He was declared guilty but received unconditional... absolution? Is that the english legal term for when your sentence is sorta suspended and you have no criminal record?
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2016, 01:47:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2016, 11:32:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 11:39:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
As a matter of public policy I think we should put the onus on those would might do the raping rather than those who might be raped.
Sure. Of course.
When I prosecute someone for stealing a car, it doesn't matter if the car owner left the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It is still a theft.
But I still also tell the vehicle owner that was a dumb move on their part.
Really? Did you just equate a girl who drinks with leaving her doors unlocked with the keys in the ignition?
if a girls drinks a lot, follows a guy to his hotel room, start fondling, ask him to stop and he does, is that rape? 'Cause I remember a case where it was...
Do you have a link? In particular to a reported case decision?
Gilbert Rozon, many years ago. He was declared guilty but received unconditional... absolution? Is that the english legal term for when your sentence is sorta suspended and you have no criminal record?
Absolute discharge. Your sentence is not suspended - you aren't given any sentence. It's quite a rare sentence, and if they gave it on a sex assault charge that means to me it was a really unique set of facts.
From what I recall of the media report (he's the man behind Just for Laughs), the girl followed him to his hotel room after a party, he started fondling her breasts (she never removed her clothes), she asked him to stop, he did, she left, and the morning after she claimed he had sexually assaulted her.
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
I've never understood this feminist message that telling girls to take steps to protect themselves is unacceptable and blaming the victim. It's sheer common sense.
What is a reasonable step? Back to MiM's post to me when I had not clearly communicated my position. Not leaving the house unescorted?
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
Whoa.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2016, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:43:39 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 03:40:59 PM
There has to be a reasonable standard though. You can't just say don't get drunk and you won't get raped. That's also blaming the victim.
I've never understood this feminist message that telling girls to take steps to protect themselves is unacceptable and blaming the victim. It's sheer common sense.
What is a reasonable step? Back to MiM's post to me when I had not clearly communicated my position. Not leaving the house unescorted?
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
Whoa.
Especially if you are in Cologne I guess, or wearing cologne for that matter.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
Whoa.
You disagree with that advice?
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:10:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
Whoa.
You disagree with that advice?
It's also about the context and who is giving it.
If you were giving that advice to your teenage daughter, I might agree.
But given that you are (1) a guy, (2) a public prosecutor, and (3) father of (only) sons, it does give off a bit of a nasty vibe. Sorry.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:14:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:10:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 19, 2016, 03:50:32 PM
Do not drink to excess. If you do drink to excess, please make sure there are sober people around who can protect you.
Whoa.
You disagree with that advice?
It's also about the context and who is giving it.
If you were giving that advice to your teenage daughter, I might agree.
But given that you are (1) a guy, (2) a public prosecutor, and (3) father of (only) sons, it does give off a bit of a nasty vibe. Sorry.
But as a prosecutor i have prosecuted a whole bunch of guys in situations where they took advantage of intoxicated girls where they had no one there to protect them. It in no way reduced their moral blameworthiness in the slightest.
I'm not giving this advice to anyone in specific. But I do think as a society that is a message we should tell to all young people, boys and girls.
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
I don't think it's blame-shifting any more than telling people to lock their car doors is.
And counting on the good actions of strangers is unlikely to be successful. People need to take control over what they can to protect themselves.
And I would absolutely tell my boys not to have sex with a girl they just met - and it has little to do with them potentially being accused of committing sex assaults.
Why leave it at girls? Why not give the advice to gays as well? No gay man may approach another gay man if the one of the parties is drunk.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2016, 12:44:10 PM
Why leave it at girls? Why not give the advice to gays as well? No gay man may approach another gay man if the one of the parties is drunk.
For the purpose of having sex? Sure, it's dumb to just do so - most HIV infections happen that way.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:56:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2016, 12:44:10 PM
Why leave it at girls? Why not give the advice to gays as well? No gay man may approach another gay man if the one of the parties is drunk.
For the purpose of having sex? Sure, it's dumb to just do so - most HIV infections happen that way.
But is it rape?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 19, 2016, 12:31:47 PM
Whichever one is on top is the rapist, I guess?
Whoever goes to the police first.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
I don't think it's blame-shifting any more than telling people to lock their car doors is.
And counting on the good actions of strangers is unlikely to be successful. People need to take control over what they can to protect themselves.
And I would absolutely tell my boys not to have sex with a girl they just met - and it has little to do with them potentially being accused of committing sex assaults.
There is not much difference between saying girls shouldnt drink in public and saying girls need to be careful about not dressing in a way that makes boys want to rape them - or wearing perfume...
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
I don't think it's blame-shifting any more than telling people to lock their car doors is.
And counting on the good actions of strangers is unlikely to be successful. People need to take control over what they can to protect themselves.
And I would absolutely tell my boys not to have sex with a girl they just met - and it has little to do with them potentially being accused of committing sex assaults.
There is not much difference between saying girls shouldnt drink in public and saying girls need to be careful about not dressing in a way that makes boys want to rape them - or wearing perfume...
No, I think there's a pretty clear difference.
Drinking to excess makes you less able to protect yourself. How you dress does not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
I don't think it's blame-shifting any more than telling people to lock their car doors is.
And counting on the good actions of strangers is unlikely to be successful. People need to take control over what they can to protect themselves.
And I would absolutely tell my boys not to have sex with a girl they just met - and it has little to do with them potentially being accused of committing sex assaults.
There is not much difference between saying girls shouldnt drink in public and saying girls need to be careful about not dressing in a way that makes boys want to rape them - or wearing perfume...
He didn't say girls shouldn't drink in public. He said they shouldn't drink
to excess (or if you do, make sure you have your friends around), and clarified that boys shouldn't either.
Sounds sensible enough to me - I always tried to do that when I was wasted: never do it alone.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
I don't think it's blame-shifting any more than telling people to lock their car doors is.
And counting on the good actions of strangers is unlikely to be successful. People need to take control over what they can to protect themselves.
And I would absolutely tell my boys not to have sex with a girl they just met - and it has little to do with them potentially being accused of committing sex assaults.
There is not much difference between saying girls shouldnt drink in public and saying girls need to be careful about not dressing in a way that makes boys want to rape them - or wearing perfume...
No, I think there's a pretty clear difference.
Drinking to excess makes you less able to protect yourself. How you dress does not.
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
Quote from: Malthus on January 22, 2016, 01:51:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
I don't think it's blame-shifting any more than telling people to lock their car doors is.
And counting on the good actions of strangers is unlikely to be successful. People need to take control over what they can to protect themselves.
And I would absolutely tell my boys not to have sex with a girl they just met - and it has little to do with them potentially being accused of committing sex assaults.
There is not much difference between saying girls shouldnt drink in public and saying girls need to be careful about not dressing in a way that makes boys want to rape them - or wearing perfume...
He didn't say girls shouldn't drink in public. He said they shouldn't drink to excess (or if you do, make sure you have your friends around), and clarified that boys shouldn't either.
Sounds sensible enough to me - I always tried to do that when I was wasted: never do it alone.
Ok, girls should not drink to excess in public. Why the special rule? The logic is they have to be careful not to make themselves a target. The real issue is there are males out there who seem buy into that logic and believe that if she has made herself a target then sex is ok.
I think the feminists are correct that sort of logic should be rejected.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
You can get into plenty of trouble getting wasted in public among strangers that does not involve actually getting victimized though.
QuoteI think the feminists are correct that sort of logic should be rejected.
Indeed. But BB has not said it is alright to have sex with drunk people anywhere so...
Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 01:55:09 PM
You can get into plenty of trouble getting wasted in public among strangers that does not involve actually getting victimized though.
Ok, but this thread is about rape.
QuoteBut BB has not said it is alright to have sex with drunk people anywhere so..
.
Sure, but what he does say is similar to saying that girls shouldnt be raped but they should be careful about how they dress.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk. Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it. If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else. It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage. The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 12:43:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
It still shifts the blame somewhat, I think. After all, a lot of that advice is something one cannot control - you can get drunk "to excess" even if you don't intend to; sometimes you don't have friends to go out with.
How about instead telling people that if you see a drunk girl being approach by a guy, intervene, even if you don't know either of them? If you see your guy friend hit on a drunk girl he doesn't know, intervene. Tell boys not to try to have sex with a girl they just met. Etc.
I don't think it's blame-shifting any more than telling people to lock their car doors is.
And counting on the good actions of strangers is unlikely to be successful. People need to take control over what they can to protect themselves.
And I would absolutely tell my boys not to have sex with a girl they just met - and it has little to do with them potentially being accused of committing sex assaults.
There is not much difference between saying girls shouldnt drink in public and saying girls need to be careful about not dressing in a way that makes boys want to rape them - or wearing perfume...
No, I think there's a pretty clear difference.
Drinking to excess makes you less able to protect yourself. How you dress does not.
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
Well that's the thing - there is no logic behind "dressing sluttily makes you more likely to be raped". There's no evidence to suggest that is remotely true.
Rape is almost exclusively a crime of opportunity. A rapist doesn't go looking for the prettiest, or even the sluttiest, girl to rape. He looks for the easiest girl to rape.
And the easiest girl to rape is one that you already have access to (remember most victims know their rapist), or who is under the influence, or better yet, both.
If there was evidence to suggest that low cut shirts = more rape, I would tell people to cover 'em up. Just as I'd tell people not to wave big wads of cash in public at night in certain parts of town.
Quote from: Barrister on January 22, 2016, 01:59:22 PM
If there was evidence to suggest that low cut shirts = more rape, I would tell people to cover 'em up.
See Valmy, BB actually made the point for me as I was posting my response to you. He just doesnt see that his logic is what, in part, contributes to males thinking that the women really does want it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:53:00 PM
Ok, girls should not drink to excess in public. Why the special rule?
I thought I just noted he made it clear it isn't a "special rule". No-one should drink to excess without their friends around. Would it make any difference if this strategy protected you against being "rolled"?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drunk+rolling
Quotethe act of taking the wallets of drunks passed out in bar parking lots.
last night i went drunk rolling i made $2000
If someone got "rolled", the robber is the guilty party. That doesn't stop the best defense against being "rolled" is not to be passed out drunk, alone, in a parking lot - does it?
Quote
The logic is they have to be careful not to make themselves a target. The real issue is there are males out there who seem buy into that logic and believe that if she has made herself a target then sex is ok.
I think the feminists are correct that sort of logic should be rejected.
Strikes me as a bizarre 'refutation' of that sort of logic, to claim one shouldn't take good advice.
"Some men just think they can just rob and rape drunk people if they are alone and vulnerable!
I'll show them - I'll get just as drink and vulnerable as I please!" :huh:
Quote from: frunk on January 22, 2016, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk. Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it. If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else. It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage. The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.
That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.
So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 02:19:50 PM
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.
In the context of drawing a cartoon of Muhammed why isn't it? Pretty sure everybody who has done this knew exactly what kind of people they were provoking. That was precisely the entire point of the exercise.
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 02:19:50 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 22, 2016, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk. Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it. If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else. It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage. The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.
That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.
So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.
Could you clarify this moral and legal reasoning of an intervening autonomous act? For instance, in the case the actor is law enforcement? That is, "if you rape someone you go to jail".
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 02:19:50 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 22, 2016, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk. Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it. If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else. It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage. The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.
That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.
So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.
No-one is arguing moral or legal responsibility though. They are arguing
safety tips.
"Install a better lock on your house - a kid could easily force that one" isn't the same thing as "you are legally and morally to blame if you get burglarized". Even if you left your door totally unlocked all the time, the moral and legal blame is wholly on the burglar, not on you: they made the culpable decision to be a thief. They cannot lessen their responsibility by claiming 'well, you made it so easy for me, who wouldn't steal your shit?'.
Doesn't stop it from being
risky though.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2016, 12:44:10 PM
Why leave it at girls? Why not give the advice to gays as well? No gay man may approach another gay man if the one of the parties is drunk.
OMG "backs against the wall boys" isn't homophobic. It's victim blaming :o
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 02:19:50 PM
Quote from: frunk on January 22, 2016, 01:58:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 01:51:15 PM
In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.
Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk. Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it. If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else. It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage. The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.
That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.
So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.
While I fully support the rights of cartoonists to draw offensive cartoons of Mohammed, I have said in the past and will say now that doing so is really fucking pointless and stupid. There's no great artistic point being made - it's only purpose is to be offensive and provoke a response.
To quote the great statesman the President of the United Federation of Planets, "just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing."
I'm shocked that BB hates freedom.
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2016, 02:49:42 PM
I'm shocked that BB hates freedom.
Yeah, at least he is consistent, isn't he?
Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 02:19:50 PM
Quote
Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk. Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it. If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else. It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage. The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.
That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.
So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.
Hmm, what part of "The perpetrators are fully to blame" did you not understand, and how can the perpetrators be fully to blame and the victim still share some of the blame? To me risk does not imply blame, everybody takes all sorts of risks every day and they don't carry with them blame. To say a particular behavior has an increased risk of something happening doesn't mean the victims are blamed when that something happens. At least it doesn't to me.
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 01:27:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2016, 01:21:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 20, 2016, 12:43:09 PM
And personally, if I girl wants to play all coy - I am not into that at all. Baby, I will do almost anything you want me to do, but you have to tell me you want it. Maybe even tell me how much you want it. :cool:
You're so smooth :frog:
Et tu, Jacob? I assumed I'd get some shots from others, but surely you'd support my stance that explicit consent in the bedroom is kind of sexy. :(
I'm sorry that I don't find you sexy :cry:
... but if it makes you feel better, I have no problem with the principle of obtaining explicit consent even if I think your narration of a specific scenario is kind of dorky sounding :hug: